Laguna Beach Police Breath Testing in Bars


    Robert L. Miller and Associates is a law firm dedicated to clients. We have handled thousands of cases, and have winning results. Learn more about our firm and why it’s the best choice.

    Read more


    DUI Dismissals and Case Results
    See some of the many cases we have won at trial or through motions, negotiations, or strategy. Learn why we are so successful in protecting clients

    Read more


    If you have been arrested, don’t delay. You have only 10 days to save your license. Contact us today for a FREE consultation, and find out about all of your options, and all of your rights, and how to protect yourself.

    Read more

Laguna Beach Police Breath Testing in Bars

Laguna Beach Police Breath Testing in Bars

Laguna Beach Police Breath Testing in Bars

Laguna Beach Police Breath Testing in Bars to warn patrons against making the mistake of driving under the influence (DUI)in Orange County.  As we have covered before , the Huntington Beach Police have had a series of operations, where they go into bars in that city, and breath test patrons. 

Laguna Beach DUI Patrol officers are also getting involved, making quite an entrance with a similar program, as they are asking people in bars and restaurants throughout Laguna Beach stole to provide breath samples, before being asked if they drove there and are driving home.

This more aggressive tactic, which has the stated goal of reducing the number of inebriated motorists focuses on education by letting customers know how the number of alcoholic drinks affects their blood alcohol concentration (BAC), said the Laguna Beach Police in a press release

Officers from the Laguna Beach Police Department obtained breath samples from 66 patrons, dining or drinking at eight different establishments in Laguna, during one three-hour “Know Your Limit” campaign.

Laguna Beach partnered with the California Office of Traffic Safety, which provides substantial funding for DUI checkpoints throughout the state, and held its first exercise with bar patrons after consulting with the Huntington Beach police.

Program Aims to Reduce Laguna Beach DUI  

Local officers visited local bars and restaurants, beginning with Hennessy’s Tavern and The Marine Room on Ocean Avenue in downtown Laguna Beach.

Officers in uniform tried to make it clear to patrons that they were there to educate them, not ticket them. Still, patrons seem to be nervous, newspaper reports stated.

One of the officers testing that night, explained how residual mouth alcohol can stay in a person’s mouth, even following one sip. It’s better to test 15 minutes after the person’s last drink, he said.

He said that mouthwash can also boost a person’s BAC because it contains alcohol. Lee said that some people get pulled over, swig mouthwash, and it shoots their BAC reading higher than it is.

The Los Angeles Times reported in their article that a person can be charged with DUI if they are driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) or other medications with or without alcohol, which affects their ability to drive safely.

Those who participated in the breath testing received a $20 gift card for Uber if they were above the legal limit. Uber helped sponsor the program to have Laguna Beach Police Breath Testing in Bars.

After officers visited eight restaurants, two of the officers that were involved in the Know Your Limit operation conducted a DUI patrol that had already been scheduled for that evening and arrested two drivers for an Orange County DUI.  Laguna Beach is known for having a very high arrest rate for DUI cases in Orange County.

If you need a consultation with an Orange County DUI Lawyer, contact our firm.  We are happy to help you and offer advice on your case.

DUI Under the Influence of Tea

DUI Under the Influence of Tea

DUI Under the Influence of Tea

There was a recent case here in California, where a driver was arrested for driving under the influence of caffeine.  There are also many cases where Coca Tea, which can test positive for cocaine, can cause you go be arrested for a Drug DUI.  But in California, caselaw determines that there is another hot beverage which can make you test “under the influence” while driving – Kava Kava.

Kava Kava is a drink that is popular in the Islands of the South Pacific – including in Polynesian and Hawaiian culture, and in many Pacific Island native cultures.  It is made from the root of the Kava plant, which is a type of pepper plant.  It is sold over the counter online and in many pharmacies as a powdered capsule, or as a tea, for relaxation.

The Olive Case – DUI Under the Influence of Tea

Almost two decades ago, a fight between Kava and California’s DUI Laws took place, causing the appeals court to decide the issue.  A man named Sione Olive was driving on Highway 101 to visit his aunt in Palo Alto.  He was driving directly from his church, Shoreline Church in San Mateo, where he had been given kava tea during a religious function. It’s common for Kava Kava to be part of Polynesian rituals.

The prosecutors in San Mateo County said that his driving and performance for officer’s field sobriety tests showed that he was under the influence, due to the tea.  Testing showed that he had no alcohol in his system.  CHP Officer Dave Newton, however, “had the opinion that he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs,” he said, “based on his driving, his watery eyes, his sluggish movements and his failure of field sobriety tests.” He was given a breathalyzer, and a urine test, which tested negative for alcohol, but positive for Kava tea.

The case went to trial, and the jury deadlocked.  They were unable to agree on a finding of guilt, and the case was declared a mistrial.  The prosecutors decided to retry the case.

In December, 2000, the case was tried again, and Olive was found guilty.  However, citing “a lack of evidence” from prosecutors to demonstrate that the herbal brew indeed caused Olive to drive erratically that morning, Judge Marta Diaz found that he had been wrongfully charged under a statute of the state vehicle code regarding driving under the influence of drugs.

“I cannot find that its application to this defendant is appropriate,” she said, granting a motion by defense attorney Hugo Borja to dismiss the case. After suggesting that Olive may not have understood the sobriety tests due to his limited English, the DUI Defense Lawyer Borja, had argued that his client did not consider himself impaired from drinking kava. In the absence of concrete legal wording on the subject, he added, the highway patrol should not be allowed to arrest motorists for driving under the influence of a substance that has not been adequately defined.

That year, the 26 year old Olive’s arrest for Kava tea was only the second of its kind ever in California. In October of the same year (2000), jurors had deadlocked on whether to acquit 47-year-old Taufui Piutau of San Bruno, who was also arrested for weaving on U.S. 101 after drinking kava.

The Definition of Substances that Make You Under the Influence

The state vehicle code defines a drug as “any substance or combination of substances … which could so affect the nervous system, brain, or muscles of a person as to impair, to an appreciable degree, his ability to drive a vehicle in the manner that an ordinarily prudent or cautious man … would drive a similar vehicle under like conditions.”

Judge Marta Diaz, who had heard the second trial, apparently disagreed – saying in effect it was not up to officers and prosecutors to determine what substances impair a driver’s abilities.  “The real issue here is not the stop,” she said, noting the officer did the correct thing to pull over the weaving vehicle.

Instead, she asked, “Is the application of the statute to this substance patently unfair? Would we be sitting here if the defendant said he had 23 cups of hot milk?”

The following year, on July 24, 2001, the appellate division of the Superior Court of San Mateo delivered the decision that appears below.  It remanded the case back to court for a third time, and indicated that the laws did not have to name specific drugs, or even name Kava tea, but rather was sufficient to prosecute, as the law prohibiting drugs “conveys legally sufficient warning about the prohibited conduct” enough to have a jury determine whether or not the kava tea made it unsafe for the defendant to drive.

The DUI Under the Influence of Kava Tea Case: People v. Olive (2001)

Appellate Division, Superior Court, San Mateo

[No. AD-4645.

July 24, 2001.]

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SIONE OLIVE, Defendant and Respondent.

(Superior Court of San Mateo County, No. SM306891, Marta S. Diaz, Judge.)

(Opinion by Kopp, J., with Holm, P. J. and Pfeiffer, J., concurring.)


Hugo Borja, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Rachel Holt, for Defendant and Respondent. [92 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 23]



This appeal involves a legal issue of first impression and continuing public interest in California.

Respondent, driving erratically at a slow speed southbound on U.S. Highway 101 at 1:20 a.m. on June 17, 2000, was stopped by California Highway Patrol officers. Requested to walk to the officers’ vehicle, respondent displayed difficulty in maintaining his balance. His movements were deliberate, slow and sluggish; his eyes were red and watery. He denied drinking any alcohol but stated he had consumed approximately 23 cups of kava. Asked if he felt any effect from the kava, respondent replied that he felt “slow and heavy.” Immediately thereafter, physical sobriety tests were administered to the respondent. His performance was flawed. A preliminary alcohol screening test showed 0.00% alcohol in his blood. One of the officers then arrested respondent after forming the opinion that respondent was under the influence of alcohol or a drug and his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely was impaired.

Appellant commenced criminal action against respondent on June 19, 2000, accusing him of violating Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a). fn. 1 Respondent moved to dismiss the charge, claiming unconstitutionality of section 23152, subdivision (a) as applied to him in the circumstances of the case. He alleged the statute was “overly broad and vague” and its [92 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 24] application on the facts of the case denied him “due process of law.” Respondent further contended section 23152, subdivision (a) provides no notice that driving under the influence of kava is a crime and that neither by statute nor case law is kava deemed a drug under section 23152, subdivision (a).

Respondent also moved pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 to suppress evidence from a post arrest urine test. Respondent’s motion to suppress evidence was considered first by the trial court at a hearing in which the arresting officer testified for appellant and was cross-examined by respondent. The respondent neither produced any evidence nor exercised responsibility for sustaining the burden of his motion to dismiss the case. In fact, appellant’s evidentiary presentation anent the motion to suppress evidence and the testimonial hearing thereon were subsumed by the court’s consideration of the motion to dismiss for unconstitutionality. The trial court denied the motion to suppress evidence and, after considering legal argument in which the court requested appellant to proceed first, ordered dismissal of the case, declaring it was doing so: “in this case, under these circumstances, based on the evidence in this particular record.”

[1a] Appellant appeals, claiming dismissal occurred pursuant to Penal Code section 1385 “in furtherance of justice” and that the trial court abused its discretion thereunder. We reverse, not because Penal Code section 1385’s discretionary power was abused (Penal Code section 1385 was not the basis of dismissal), but because (1) respondent, not appellant, bears the burden in his due process attack of showing Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a)’s unconstitutionality as applied and failed utterly to do so, and (2) such showing as was adduced in the motion to suppress hearing persuades us the statute is constitutional as applied to respondent. As noted in People v. Archerd (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 615, 639, in which the defendant raised pre-indictment delay as a violation of his due process right to a speedy trial, an accused must demonstrate “prejudice or improper motive by the prosecution . . . [and thereafter] the burden shifts to the people to show that the pre-indictment delay was the result of a valid police purpose.” Similarly, respondent, not appellant, was first obliged procedurally to establish, by experts or other evidentiary sources, unconstitutional application, after which appellant could respond.

Since no facts were advanced by respondent concerning unconstitutional application of section 23152, subdivision (a) to him, he rests his unconstitutionality argument upon the lack of any judicial decision and omission of a literal statutory statement that kava constitutes a “drug” within the meaning of section 23152, subdivision (a). We could remand to the trial court for [92 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 25] failure to compel respondent’s execution of his burden to show unconstitutionality of section 23152, subdivision (a) as applied. [2] We do not do so because interpretation of a statute and the determination of its constitutionality are questions of law, absent any factual showing by an accused. As an appellate court, we apply a de novo standard of review. (People v. Health Laboratories of North America, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 442, 445.)

[3] All presumptions favor the validity of a statute, and statutes “must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively and unmistakably appears.” (Smith v. Peterson (1955) 131 Cal. App. 2d 241, 246.) A criminal statute satisfies due process so long as it is “definite enough to provide a standard of conduct for those whose activities are proscribed [citations]” and “provide[s] definite guidelines for the police in order to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. [Citations.]” (People v. Heitzman (1994) 9 Cal. 4th 189, 199-200.) A statute must give fair warning and sufficiently inform ordinary people with average intelligence of the acts it declares prohibited and punishable. (Burg v. Municipal Court (1983) 35 Cal. 3d 257, 270-272.) The defendant in Burg challenged the then existing 0.10 percent blood-alcohol standard for conviction of a section 23152, subdivision (b) violation with a vagueness theory that it was impossible “for a person to determine by means of his senses whether his blood-alcohol level is a ‘legal’ 0.09 percent or an ‘illegal’ 0.10 percent.” (Burg, at p. 270) The court rejected defendant’s curious theory and commented that consumption of a quantity of alcohol “should notify a person of ordinary intelligence he is in jeopardy of violating the statute.” (Id. at p. 271)

[1b] Respondent herein contends that without inclusion of kava, in haec verba, section 23152, subdivision (a) is void for vagueness. Actual notice of each drug constituting a basis for prosecution under section 23152, subdivision (a) is not required if a person is reasonably made aware of the proscribed conduct, namely, impaired driving ability resulting from ingestion of some substance. “It is not required that a statute, to be valid, have that degree of exactness which inheres in a mathematical theorem. It is not necessary that a statute furnish detailed plans and specifications of the acts or conduct prohibited.” (Smith v. Peterson, supra, “131 Cal.App.2d at p. 246.)

In People v. Buese (1963) 220 Cal. App. 2d 802, 806-807, the court held not void for vagueness a statute barring transportation of “drugs” into a county jail. The drug in issue was a hypnotic. The court observed: “‘Drugs’ is the general word used in association with ‘narcotics’ and ‘alcoholic beverages.’ These terms have a number of things in common, [92 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 26] included among which is the fact that they are taken internally and when so taken they affect the brain, and particularly that function of the brain controlling judgment. By use of the word ‘drugs’ it is reasonable to assume the Legislature intended to include those drugs having similar characteristics. So interpreted hypnotic drugs are clearly within a much larger group possessing such similarity.” (Id. at p. 807).

As used in section 23152, “drug” is defined by section 312 which declares: “The term ‘drug’ means any substance or combination of substances, other than alcohol, which could so affect the nervous system, brain, or muscles of a person as to impair, to an appreciable degree, his ability to drive a vehicle in the manner that an ordinarily prudent and cautious man, in full possession of his faculties, using reasonable care, would drive a similar vehicle under like conditions.”

Omission of kava by its name does not render section 23152, subdivision (a) unconstitutionally vague as applied. (People v. Avila (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 791, 802-803; People v. Keith (1960) 184 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 884.) In Avila, a Penal Code section 286, subdivision (i) action, the Court of Appeals iterated: “A statute provides adequate notice when its ‘language conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.'” (People v. Avila, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at pp. 802-803, italics added.) No actual substance was (or is) identified in Penal Code section 286, subdivision (i). There, the court held the purpose of the allegedly vague language in that statute was “to define the crime in terms that clearly warn against the commission of sodomy on a victim whose ability to resist, . . . is prevented by substances having anesthetic or intoxicating effects . . . .” (Avila, at p. 798.)

Section 23152, subdivision (a) provides that vehicle operation while under the influence of a substance other than alcohol which could “affect the nervous system, brain, or muscles” (Veh. Code, § 312) in such a way as to impair a person’s ability to drive as an ordinarily prudent and cautious man using reasonable care would drive a vehicle under like conditions is a crime. It describes conduct; it does not purport to identify particular drugs, and it is not required constitutionally in this case to do so. (Testimony offered by appellant at the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence demonstrates respondent was himself aware of kava’s effects the very night of his arrest; he felt “slow and heavy”. fn. 2

Because respondent failed to sustain the burden of proof created by his due process motion to dismiss for unconstitutionality as applied and because [92 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 27] section 23152, subdivision (a) in conjunction with section 312 conveys legally sufficient warning about the prohibited conduct, the judgment dismissing the criminal action against respondent is reversed. The case is remanded for trial.

Holm, P. J. and Pfeiffer, J. concurred.

FN 1. All statutory references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise stated.

FN 2. The effects upon his motoring ability were plainly observed by the arresting officer, who also observed respondent’s flawed performance on physical sobriety tests.

Contact Us for Questions.

If you need the help of a Drug DUI specialist, contact our firm today.  We can help you and assess whether or not you need a DUI Lawyer, and how we might be able to help you.

Orange County DUI Checkpoints January 13-15, 2017

Orange County DUI Checkpoints January 13-15, 2017

Orange County DUI Checkpoints

We have discussed before why DUI Checkpoints don’t work.  And yet, the large amount of money devoted to DUI checkpoints, mostly for officer overtime, makes drunk driving checkpoints persist, when the more effective DUI Saturation Patrols catch a higher percentage of persons driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

This weekend, Orange county law enforcement agencies has planned DUI checkpoints in the following cities:

  • Laguna Niguel DUI Checkpoint
  • Santa Ana DUI Checkpoint
  • Laguna Beach DUI Checkpoint

Laguna Niguel DUI Checkpoint

The DUI Checkpoint in Laguna Niguel is scheduled for Friday, January 13th, 2017,  from  7pm to 3am within the City Limits.  The exact location was not announced.

Santa Ana DUI Checkpoint

The DUI Checkpoint in Santa Ana is scheduled for Friday, January 13th, 2017,  from 9:30 pm to 2:30am.  The checkpoint is located on Bristol, between Edinger and McFadden at a smaller street called Borchard.

Laguna Beach DUI Checkpoint

The DUI Checkpoint in Laguna Beach is actually a series of saturation patrols in Orange County.  They will take place all over the city on Saturday, January 14th, 2017,  from 8:00 pm to 3:00am. As stated in a press release from the Laguna Beach DUI Enforcement Program:

“Officers from the Laguna Beach Police Department’s DUI Enforcement Team will be deploying this weekend to stop and arrest alcohol and drug-impaired drivers in the Department’s ongoing traffic safety campaign. DUI Saturation Patrols will deploy on Saturday, January 14th, between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. in areas with high frequencies of DUI collisions and/or arrests.”

Are DUI Checkpoints Legal?

As most people know, DUI checkpoints are roadblocks that law enforcement officers set up on roads. They are set up for the purpose of catching people driving under the influence of alcohol. Many point out that they are used to generate revenue for police departments, since the stops often result in car impound fees shared with the police agencies, officer overtime paid for by grants, and in some cases thousands of citizens being slapped with fines for minor offenses unrelated to DUI. Civil asset forfeiture laws do allow the police to seize vehicles and share impound fees between the police and that practice by itself has been heavily criticized and has led to changes in the law. has been implemented during these stops as well.

In other jurisdictions, twelve states do not conduct sobriety checkpoints.  That is because they prohibit them by state law or their interpretation of their State Constitution. If you live in, or are driving through, any of these 12 states, DUI checkpoints are illegal and are not allowed by law:

  • Alaska,
  • Idaho,
  • Iowa,
  • Michigan,
  • Minnesota,
  • Montana,
  • Oregon,
  • Rhode Island,
  • Texas,
  • Washington,
  • Wisconsin, and
  • Wyoming.

Many of the 38 states DO conduct checkpoints under their laws. they do so based upon interpretation of actions allowed the State under the federal Constitution. Washington, D.C. also allows them for that reason.

Are DUI Checkpoints in California Legal?

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that in the case of DUI checkpoints, our Fourth Amendment rights don’t apply. The court found that the interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the “minor infringement” on a driver’s rights.

Certain requirements for “Constitutional” checkpoints do apply, though.  In California, the Ingersoll v. Palmer decision applies:

In order for the checkpoints to be Constitutional there must be clear guidelines that are carefully followed by the legal authorities. Additionally, the Court has left it up to each individual state to develop these guidelines. In California, for example, the state supreme court has held that the decisions about where to set up sobriety checkpoints and about which cars to stop (i.e. every car, every sixth car, etc) must be made by supervisors prior to officers setting up the checkpoints. The sites selected should be in areas that have a high incidence of drunk driving and the length of each stop should be minimized.

Contact us Today.

Contact us

If you have questions about a DUI checkpoint, or were arrested for DUI in Orange County, contact our DUI Defense Law Firm today.  We can help you and give you an honest assessment of your case.

What’s more dangerous than DUI? Driving sleep deprived.

What’s more dangerous than DUI?  Driving sleep deprived.

Cost of a DUI
Don’t miss a full night’s sleep – you can’t afford that either.

The best method to avoid crashes might just be to try getting the recommended seven to eight hours of sleep each night.  The answer to  the question, what’s more dangerous than DUI, amazingly, is driving without enough sleep.

Drivers who are just 10-20% lower than that recommendation nearly double their risk for a crash the next day, according to a new study conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

“the crash risk of a driver who has slept for only four to five of the past 24 hours is approximately quadruple the risk of a driver who has slept for the expert-recommended minimum of seven hours, similar to the crash risk of a driver who is legally intoxicated relative to a sober driver,”

An prior AAA crash study, from 2010, found that nearly 50% of drivers – as many as two out of five persons driving a motor vehicle, have fallen asleep at the wheel at some point in their lives.


Some experts have noted that the new study has some limitations, such as not including data on vehicle crashes between midnight and 6 a.m. and analyzing how only a lack of sleep in the past 24 hours was associated with crash risk, rather than quality of sleep, which may be even more important.

“The study was designed specifically to investigate the relationship between acute sleep deprivation and crash risk,” the lead researcher for the AAA study stated.
After analyzing the data, the researchers found that:
  • drivers who had slept for less than four hours had 11½ times the crash risk rate of drivers who had slept seven hours or more;
  • drivers who had four to five hours of sleep had 4.3 times the risk; those who had five to six hours had 1.9 times the risk; and
  • those who had six to seven hours had 1.3 times the risk.
In other words, “the crash risk of a driver who has slept for only four to five of the past 24 hours is approximately quadruple the risk of a driver who has slept for the expert-recommended minimum of seven hours, similar to the crash risk of a driver who is legally intoxicated relative to a sober driver,” the lead researcher stated.
A 2012 study published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine found that sleepiness carried almost as much risk as alcohol ingestion  – in other words as much as being DUI,
A report published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in February found that more than a third of adults in the United States reported getting less than seven hours of sleep daily.
The CDC even has called insufficient sleep a “public health problem.”
The new AAA study featured data on 7,234 drivers who were involved in 4,571 vehicle crashes, from 6 a.m. to midnight, between 2005 and 2007.
Data for the analysis came from from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, which included how much sleep drivers reported having in the 24 hours preceding a crash.
“While we do not think anybody would be surprised to learn that driving while extremely sleep-deprived increases a driver’s risk of being involved in a crash — this admittedly is rather intuitive — we were surprised to find a detectable increase in crash risk when a driver had slept even just one hour less than the seven hours recommended by sleep experts,” said Brian Tefft, senior research association for the foundation, who led the new study.
The lesson is clear: in addition to making sure that you don’t have alcohol or drugs in your system while driving, you owe it to other drivers to get enough sleep.  Not getting enough sleep and getting behind the wheel is indistinguishable from driving under the influence.
DMV Information and Penalties for a DUI
If you have questions for our DUI Attorneys, contact our firm.  Our firm has been handling cases involving DUI in Orange County for over 21 years, and we can help you.

What Happens After a DUI Arrest

What Happens After a DUI Arrest in Orange County

Orange County Courts Website

After being arrested for a DUI in Orange County, you will be taken to the police station for blood alcohol content (BAC) testing.  Blood testing is usually done at the Orange County Jail in Santa Ana. However, some CHP offices and all hospitals can collect blood for DUI testing also.  In Orange County, only the OC Crime Lab does blood testing for DUI cases.

Orange County Sheriff’s Patrol Cars that are designated for saturation patrols or DUI enforcement have an Alcosensor IV, or the newer Alcosensor V breath testing devices, in the vehicle.  Only those devices are certified for use for breath testing in the field, which means that you will not have a later breath test.  For any other testing device, you would typically be given a field PAS breathalyzer, and then a more accurate breath test at the police station.

If your BAC from either the breath test, or the blood test, is above the 0.08% legal limit, you will be charged with a misdemeanor DUI. If you are charged with a misdemeanor, you may be released on your own recognizance until the arraignment.

Note that if you are arrested for a DUI with a serious injury, or a DUI with three or more priors, those are felony DUIs, and you will be held until you post bail.  If you were on DUI probation, or have any prior DUIs, you may be required to post bail.  First time DUI cases do not require posting of bail.

Your DUI Arraignment

What happens at your arraignment?  In short, you will be informed of any charge(s) asserted against you at the arraignment, and the commissioner or judge will advise you of the minimum and maximum penalties for DUI. You will be provided the opportunity to enter a plea of guilty, or not guilty.

You will also be asked if you want a lawyer, or time to speak to a lawyer.  If you are interested in a public defender, or in representing yourself (which is never recommended), you can begin qualifying for that at this appearance also. If you have any prior DUIs, the judge may impose additional bond conditions such as attending AA classes, and abstaining from alcohol, while the case is pending.

Whenever possible, it is best to contact an attorney prior to your arraignment to make sure your best interests are protected. We are happy to provide a free legal consultation before your court date, so that you understand all your options.

Your DUI Pretrial Conference

Once you plead not guilty, a pretrial conference is held to discuss plea options. The first pretrial conference occurs about 2-4 weeks following the arraignment. At a pretrial conference, the defense and the prosecution meet to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each side of the case, and to see whether all the evidence on each side has been provided and reviewed.  From there, both sides are free to begin negotiations regarding lesser offenses, punishment and agreement on a sentence.

DUI Trials

Once there is a plea bargain, the case stops.  If you have rejected a plea bargain, your case is usually set for trial.  At trial the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you operated your motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and/or above a .08%. You have a right to a trial by judge or jury.

DUI Sentencing

Once you plead or are found guilty, the judge will impose a sentence. Penalties for a DUI, or lesser charges, may consist of court fees and fines, probation, an alcohol school, community service, or reimbursement (restitution) for any damages caused in an accident.

Contact Our Firm

You can contact our DUI Defense Lawyers any time to discuss your case in confidence and find out what happens after a DUI arrest in Orange County. We can offer legal guidance and honest advice and counseling on how to best proceed – even if that means we recommend you not have a lawyer.